Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove the requirement for LLM attribution

On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 05:07:03PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 10:32:48AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > We've had this requirement in place in the Documentation for several
> > months, but it's becoming clear that the signal to noise ratio from this
> > is quite low.
> >
> > 1/ It's not universally followed. While many people do try to attribute
> > the LLMs in good faith, not everyone does for various reasons.
>
> Then let's move to get people to follow it.
>
> > 2/ It basically serves as free advertising for proprietary LLM companies.
>
> Who cares, make up a name, all I want is the "signal" that someone is
> using a LLM so that I can review it as-such.  And if I think someone is
> not reporting that, I can ask for them to properly attribute it and if
> they lie, well, that's on them.
>
> > 3/ It's not clear why we want to collect this info in the first place.
>
> We want to know if a LLM is being used.
>
> > Given that the data this provides is flawed at best and is being
> > collected for a purpose that isn't clear, let's just kill the
> > requirement for these tags from the kernel at large.
>
> No, please do not do this.  It's useful already for many patches in my
> subsystems, and is only going to be used more in the future.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Entirely my view and experience. The tags are proactively useful, even if flawed
and (possibly very) incomplete.

I am totally fine with getting rid of the model however, and I do think it'd be
useful to add a small paragraph suggesting that people add a comment indicating
_how much_ of the patch was LLM-generated, even if it's vague and fuzzy.

Some information > no information.

Thanks, Lorenzo